What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308001 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 4 White Pine

How much money was awarded in case 5308001?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $14,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308001?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663592-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308001 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 4 White Pine

How much money was awarded in case 5308001?

Property Damage: $720.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $14,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308001?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663592-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 White Pine Avenue, Woodridge, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308001 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308001 — net $14,020.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to Thursday, 6/11/2025	$14,740.00		Rent arrears to Thursday, 6/11/2025
Exemplary Damages - maintenance		$720.00	Exemplary Damages - maintenance
Total award	$14,740.00	$720.00
Net award	$14,020.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,020.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308001 — net $14,020.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to Thursday, 6/11/2025	$14,740.00		Rent arrears to Thursday, 6/11/2025
Exemplary Damages - maintenance		$720.00	Exemplary Damages - maintenance
Total award	$14,740.00	$720.00
Net award	$14,020.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,020.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 4 White Pine Avenue, Woodridge, Wellington 6037 is terminated, and possession is granted to Comprende Limited as agent for Julia Tan, at 7pm on Thursday, 6 November 2025 unless $820.00 is paid by the tenants on or before that date.
If $820.00 is paid on or before 6 November 2025 the tenancy will end at 5 pm on Monday, 10 November 2025.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Comprende Limited as agent for Julia Tan $14,020.00 immediately.
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears and payment of the arrears.
The tenants have requested the Tribunal to make work orders.
The tenants have claimed compensation for maintenance issues and non- compliance of Healthy Homes Standards (hereafter ‘HHS’).
The tenants have claimed exemplary damages for: a. failure to meet HHS deadlines and standards, b. breach of quiet enjoyment for the landlord sending multiple emails and aggressive phone calls regarding rent arrears and serving incorrect notices - amounting to harassment, c. not agreeing to a rent payments arrangement, d. keys received after the start of the tenancy, e. failure to maintain the property f. discrimination g. using an agent to provide a notice of entry, THE LANDLORD’S CLAIM

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where a landlord applies to terminate for a breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears. To be more specific, rent is over 120 days in arrears at the date of hearing. Rent is $820.00 per week. The tenants have not made any rent payments since 24 July this year. The tenancy is terminated.
The tenants submitted that they had insufficient time to get legal advice regarding the landlord’s application for termination. A tenant who has been living in premises without paying rent for three months would have a warped sense of entitlement if they believed their free ride should continue without a challenge.
The landlord is entitled to possession of the premises immediately however I have allowed the tenants a few days to move out, provided they pay the landlord rent for this week.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove that $14,740.00 is owed to Thursday, 6 November 2025. THE TENANTS’ CLAIMS Work orders
The tenants request that the Tribunal makes work orders. This claim is moot. The claim has lost any practical significance because the tenants will not be living at the premises. Healthy Homes Standards Drainage standard
The tenants claim that the landlord failed to meet HHS deadlines and compliance.
Regarding deadlines and compliance, the tenants referred to the HHS statement provided by the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. In the section headed ‘Final Compliance’, the statement reads ‘No’. The ‘No” referred to drainage requirements. The tenants stated the landlord breached by not informing them when the premises became compliant.
In the hearing the landlord provided evidence that the work necessary for compliance was carried out before the tenancy began on 4 October 2024. There are photos showing the guttering and drainage work carried out. The property was made complaint by 20 September 2024, after the initial inspection on 2 September 2024, but owner provided the property manager with the incorrect information to attach to the Tenancy Agreement.
Nothing rests on this mistake. The property was compliant regarding drainage when the tenancy began. The tenants were not adversely affected by the mistake. Their claim is dismissed. Heater capacity
The tenants sent an email to the property manager on the Saturday 1 November 2025, two days before Monday’s hearing, stating that the living room heater did not meet the required HHS. The HHS Assessment & Compliance Report dated 2 September 2024 set out the heating requirement for the main living room to be
8 kW and the capacity of the Rinnai Flued gas heater to be 5.0 kW.
The technical specifications for the heater attached to the email showed the capacity of the Rinnai heater to be 4.2 kW and an 84% efficiency. The 4.2 kW output referred to in the document provided by the tenants is based on an efficiency of 84%. HHS are based on a heater at 100% capacity. The Rinnai heater is correctly rated by the HHS assessor at 5kW capacity. This is confirmed by a check with AI Overview. The heater has an input of 8-18Mj/h. “An input of 18 MJ/h (megajoules per hour) is equivalent to a 5 kW power input. Here is the breakdown of the 18 MJ/h rating: Power Input (at 100% efficiency) The conversion from megajoules per hour (MJ/h) to kilowatts (kW) is straightforward, as both are units of power (energy per unit time): • 18 MJ/h = 5 kW
The tenants’ claim that the living room heater is non-compliant is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment
The tenants have claimed that the landlord’s behaviour regarding rent arrears amounted to harassment. The claim is that the amount of emails, incorrect information in emails and landlord’s abusive over the phone was harrassment.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: ‘Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.’ (my bold)
The rent arrears emails from the landlord to the tenants was not harassment because they were sent to serve a legitimate purpose. The specific purpose was to remind the tenants that their rent was not being paid and they were in breach of their contract. The annoyance and emotional distress these emails may have caused the tenants was the outcome of their own breach. The way for the tenants to avoid the distress was to pay the rent and not be in breach of the contract. The number of emails was not excessive when considering the erratic rent payments when rent was being paid and then the ballooning of arrears.
The landlord denied that phone calls were abusive. The accusation of abuse was not supported by the content of phone calls. There is insufficient evidence for a finding that the landlord was abusive.
The landlord sent notices to the tenants that were appropriate for a periodic tenancy rent arrears breach. The notices were of no effect. The RTA does not specify that this type of error is an unlawful act.
The claim for exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment has not been proved and is therefore dismissed. The landlord not agreeing to a rent payments arrangement
The tenants have claimed that exemplary damages should be ordered because the landlord did not agree to a rent payment arrangement.
Exemplary damages are ordered where a tenant or landlord commits an unlawful act.
The failure of parties to agree to a rent payments is not among the unlawful acts set out in the RTA. The claim is therefore dismissed. Keys received after the start of the tenancy
The tenants have claimed exemplary damages because the tenancy began on a Friday but they were not given keys until the Saturday. They have raised this issue for the first time over a year after the event.
The claim for exemplary damages could not be ordered even if there was reason to do so because exemplary damages cannot be ordered for claims twelve months after the cause of action. (see section 109(2)(b) RTA).
The claim for exemplary damages is struck out. The landlord provided texts between the parties showing that the tenants had not paid rent in advance or the bond by the end of the working day on Friday 4 October. The texts show the tenants knew that this was a requirement before receiving the keys. The tenants created the problem. The claim for compensation is dismissed. Maintenance
Under section 45, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA
The tenants have claimed compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord failing to maintain the premises. They claimed that the landlord failed to repair a hole in the decking, curtain rails, a corner kitchen cupboard door and a heated towel rail.
The landlord provided an email from the tenants dated 23 June in which the tenants set out each of these items and told the landlord they would repair them at their cost. Regarding the hole in the deck - “We are happy to repair this at no expense to yourself”. Regarding the curtain rail – “We can solve this, it’s an easy fix”. Regarding the towel rail – “We are capable of fixing this...” Regarding the kitchen cupboard – “We will address this repair”. And further in the email, “We will endevor (sic) to rectify all the issues you have brought to our attention in a timely manner and send photos to you keeping you updated as requested”.
The tenants did not keep the landlord up to date with these repairs or provide photos of any repairs.
The tenants took responsibility for this damage.
The claim that the landlord failed to maintain these items is dismissed.
Regarding the stove cooktop, the tenants submitted that the cooktop could not be used because the knobs were hard to turn on and the pilot lights kept sparking when the burner elements were alight. In the same 23 June email referred to above, the tenants wrote, “Also the kitchen cooktop has been playing up. The pilot lights are continuously sparking and nobs (sic) hard to turn. We have tried to clean a lot of build up grease and soot residue but feel it needs to be investigated so we have stopped using it for now due to safety concerns”.
The evidence provided shows that the cooktop problem was not addressed by the landlord until the tenants entered a website system request on 5 September. The landlord arranged a contractor from Garcia Plumbing and Gas to attend on 11 September.
I am satisfied that the delay in assessing the cooktop after the tenants’ email of 23 June was unreasonable. A cooktop is an essential part of any dwelling. I do not accept the landlord’s reason for the delay after 23 June. The landlord stated that the owner did not have money because the tenants were not paying rent. The rent record shows that the tenants were less than one week in arrears on 26 June.
I do however understand the owner’s predicament when the follow up cooktop request from the tenants was made in September. By then rent arrears was over $8,000.00. It is likely that the oven in the premises needed replacement. The owner was not receiving income from the tenants to assist with that maintenance cost. I accept that by September, the tenants’ failure to pay rent could have affected the landlord’s ability to purchase a replacement stove.
The tenants’ breach of their rent obligation must be taken into account when assessing both appropriate compensation and whether to order exemplary damages. Section 109(3) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may order exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so. The Tribunal must have regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
The landlord did commit an unlawful act by failing to repair or replace the oven/cooktop. It did affect the tenants’ ability to use all the facilities in the premises. The landlord benefitted by delaying the outlay for a replacement stove/cooktop. It is in the public interest landlord maintain rental premises.
Having considered all the evidence I have determined that exemplary damages be set at the lowered end of the scale. Compensation is included in the exemplary damages amount ordered. I have ordered exemplary damages of $720.00 which is one tenth of the maximum. This is based on the failure to maintain from 28 June to 5 September when rent arrears reached $8,000.00. The order for $72.00 could be viewed as compensation of $72.00 per week for ten weeks. Discrimination
The tenants claim that the landlord discriminated against because they were assisted by WINZ. The claimed that the landlord did not agreeing to payments of the rent debt for this reason.
Section 12 of the RTA refers to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction regarding discrimination. It sets out the circumstances where discrimination against person is unlawful behaviour in a tenancy. The circumstances set out in that section of the RTA do not include landlords deciding not to agree to additional rent payments to repay debt.
The tenants also claimed that the property manager breached the tenant’s human rights by suggesting the tenant took up prostitution.
When the tenants had difficulty getting assistance with money from WINZ to pay rent, the property manager suggested in an email dated 25 June 2025, “You may need to explore alternative avenues for financial assistance”. The tenants claim that was a suggestion to become a prostitute. The tenants’ suggestion is ludicrous and needs no further comment. Using an agent to provide a notice of entry,
The tenants have claimed that the landlord failed to give notice of entry. Notice of entry was given to the tenants by Property Compliance NZ (PCNZ) to test the smoke alarms. The tenants believe that notice needed to have come directly from the property manager, not PCNZ.
The property manager had authorized PCNZ to carry out the testing work. PCNZ became an agent of the landlord. The section 2 RTA definition of ‘landlord’ includes ‘the agent of the landlord’. PCNZ was an authorized agent of the landlord and as such could give notice of entry for the inspection of the smoke alarms. The landlord did not commit an unlawful act regarding entry for that inspection. Filing fee
The landlord was completely successful with their claim. The tenants were minimally successful. No order is made regarding payment of the filing fee by one party to the other party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308001 — Rent arrears at 4 White Pine Avenue, Woodridge, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308001 — Rent arrears at 4 White Pine Avenue, Woodridge, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.